Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Clinton to Stop in Fla. on Primary Night

On CBS’s “Face the Nation” this morning, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed that she would be in Florida on Tuesday night for the results in that state’s primary.

Mrs. Clinton and the other leading Democratic candidates had foresworn campaigning in Florida or officially participating in its primary after the state unilaterally moved up its contest on the nominating calendar.

Senator Barack Obama’s campaign has criticized Mrs. Clinton and her team for suggesting that she might undertake a political effort in Florida in spite of her pledge not to campaign there. The Clinton camp, meanwhile, has criticized Mr. Obama’s campaign for running some commercials on cable television in Florida (which was included in a national ad buy that the Obama campaign made).

On another front, responding to reports that Senator Edward M. Kennedy is preparing to make an endorsement in the presidential race, Clinton advisers said on Sunday morning that they did not expect Mr. Kennedy to endorse Senator Clinton.

This is PRECISELY what Hillary Clinton is about: she will go back on her word and promise SO LONG as she can win. She pledged not to campaign in Florida, and now that she has been beaten in SC, she will go back on her word. So much for leadership and character! Despicable indeed.

I don’t think Obama needs to worry about this at all. If Clinton tries to seat the Florida or Michigan delegates in order to gain decisive victory at the nominating convention then she’ll lose a huge chunk of Obama supporters in the general election. I think party officials will actually block her behind the scenes and she’ll drop it if it comes to that. If seating the delegates is not decisive then who really cares whether they vote or not. So in other words, if you are an Obama supporter, this is just a distraction not worthy of comment. If she wants to win unopposed and non-contested primaries – more power to her, won’t matter to the Super Tuesday voters. In fact, the only problem for Obama is if he takes her bait and tries to make some late showing in Florida. Just ignore the state for now and don’t make any anti-Florida comments. If asked, he should say “when I make a pledge to play by the rules, I keep the pledge. some others in this race will break the rules anytime they think it helps them. you decide what kind of president you want.” I think that’s the only rejoinder Obama needs.

The Obama campaign asked whether Florida could be left out of the national ads, but it was not possible.

Nobody should minimize Obama’s victory in SC because of the large African American population there. Hillary had had a huge lead with that same population when African Americans knew the color of Obama’s skin. African Americans, as did the whites in Iowa (and New Hampshire and Nevada, two states in which Hillary did not win a majority of delegates), responded to Obama’s message, intellect, judgment, experience and integrity. Obama won not because of the color of his skin, but because of the content of his character.

This is typical. She’s fine with the rules until they are no longer working for her. Let’s stop caucusing in casinos because those unions didn’t support me. Let’s seat Florida and Michigan at the convention because we’ve agreed to not campaign there and so I will win by name recognition alone. This has got to stop. Let’s move on.

How did the NYTimes endorse this woman and respect itself the next day? I’m still boggled about why they didn’t focus more on the fact that all her experience lead her to support an ill-conceived war. “She was wrong, but that’s not the issue now?” Really? Is it that easy to carelessly brush aside the loss of innocent life?

Join Bloggin for Barack, and let’s put out there all the reasons to support this great candidate and the historic moment for America.

These “Pit Bill” tactics truly demonstrate that the Clintons will do and and say anything to get elected. Bill should be attacking Republicans instead of destroying the Democratic party to advance his own interests. He’s looking out for one thing and that is himself. Note he spends more time in speeches saying “me” and “I” instead of pushing what kind of candidate Hillary will be. If Hillary can take of herself then he should let her and focus on attacking Republicans.

the myth of the kennedy’s is just that. after the brutal assasination of jfk & rfk, the family has become a dynastic political name or celebrity. the name doesn’t conjure much outside their precints. so caroline kennedy and ted kennedy’s endorsment of obama means nothing to anyone outside the big media blowhards.

this makes me want to contribute more and volunteer for hillary clinton. bring ’em on!

This is exactly one of the reasons that people are rejecting the Clintons, AS WELL as Republicans.
The way that they parse, and shoot moves on the rules. We, the regular folks out here are sick of these slick politicians who are always looking for ways to violate THE SPIRIT of rules and laws. This is at the cruxt of the problem with conventional politics that Barack talks about.
The Politicians win elections with falshoods and lies. The American people suffer because they end up with representation that in reality, isn’t what the people voted for.
We respect people that live up to their agreements.
These rules about Florida and Michigan were agreed to by Florida and Michigan. After Florida and Michigan didn’t get what they wanted, they just said screw the rules, we are going to move up anyway.
The people that have taken Florida and Michigan out of the delagate count are not the DNC, or the Candidates, or Iowa and New Hampshire. IT IS FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN that have taken their own delagates out of the count at the convention in Denver.
The Clintons are now doing what all dishonest politicians do, changing the rules after the contest has already started because they aren’t guaranteed to win in the end.
I think it is disgusting.

The Clinton machine is seemingly out of step with a changing political dynamic in this nation. This FL escapade sounds vaguely like something Bush/Cheney would do (who, us? We’re not doing anything wrong… we’re just ‘stopping by’ that’s all).

Is there a Bush/Cheney Clinton/Clinton similarity?

I think so. And I think it’s why there was a blow-out in SC last night.

Hey, wait a minute. Contrary to what 11:39 would like us to believe, the Obama campaign broke no rules. They did purchase national TV ad time on CNN and MSNBC, networks that obviously are telecast in Florida, but the ad time wasn’t specifically bought on Florida stations. According to the networks, it would be impossible to run advertising nationally that excluded only Florida.
Just to be sure, the O campaign consulted with the South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler who stated unequivocally that she did not consider this to be in violation of pledge made to the early states.

This primary is making the odd rules more and more visible. In the past, for example, it didn’t matter who had the superdelegates, as the popular winner would still bag the nomination. This time they might swing it.

Blocking all the MI and FL delegates with various vaguities about how they’ll count come convention time (zero? if not, they should have followed the Rs for half the delegates and let people campaign) just makes things look more opaque and to be decided in smoke filled rooms behind closed doors. Changing that count later is going to look like they’re trying to swing it toward one candidate or the other.

On a related note, the Nevada people kept trying to say that they hadn’t chosen delegates yet. This creates the unfortunate impression that they may decide to throw every one of them to Ron Paul. If people caucusing for different candidates didn’t matter, what was the point? (I realize you choose to a state conv. at these things, but people caucused FOR a particular candidate.)

If we had a clear front-runner, all the little oddities wouldn’t matter. If this goes to the convention floor, the basic “what do you mean, the person with 50% of the vote didn’t win?” will color everything badly. Deciding the nominee in a back room is not an auspicious launch to an election in the 21st century.

I think Clinton knows that she won’t be able to
get the party to change the rules in the middle of the game. What she is trying to do is to get people pay attention to Florida because she’s likely to
win there by a substantial margin (that’s what the polls currently show). If people don’t pay attention then they won’t notice. It’s as simple as that. She doesn’t necessarily care about the Florida delegates. What she cares about is the psychological impact her Florida “win” might have on voters going into Feb 5. I wouldn’t be surprised
if she gave a “victory” speech there, too.

Kevin – even though every vote counts in a democracy, it is also true, in this election, that Mrs. Clinton gave her solemn pledge that she would not campaign in Michigan or Florida, and agreed that those delegates not be counted. I don’t think that was the best solution, or even a good one, but the party brass agreed on it, and all the major candidates agreed to abide the decision.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards took their names off the Michigan ballot, in keeping with the spirit of the agreement. Mrs. Clinton did not – she claimed she was not technically required to do so. Candidates could not remove their names from the Florida ballot.

While Obama may not need to worry about a bold attempt to annul the pact at the convention, it’s clear that Mrs. Clinton’s attempt to game the system in the meantime is helping her. Because she left her name on the ballot in Michigan, it’s usually reported as a win, as it is in this paper, in the Election Guide. When voters hear “win”, in print and on tv, that’s positive coverage that can’t be taken back, even if it’s not true.

If Mrs. Clinton gets a similar “win” in Florida, where she is ahead in the polls, it would be a great temptation for her to ignore her pledge and try to use the coverage to build momentum going into February, a temptation she appears unable to resist.

It follows that her campaign should start talking right now about how all the votes must be counted in a democracy, etc.

It’s not a crime to want to win, but it’s not very cool to make an agreement, give your word that you will adhere to it, and then try and get out of it when it no longer suits you.

I want the person who represents me to mean what they say, and say what they mean. It’s not too much to ask.

we have not forgotten the way you betrayed us on your Iraq war vote. New Yorkers are going to pay you back in full on Feb. 5th.

Did you really think that you could use us as a stepping stool to the presidency, compromising your electorate’s interests for your own political ambitions? Did you think we were Delaware or something? No one chumps NY….it’s NY that’s going to chump you!

Fight the politics of fear and fraud! Say no to Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton in 2008!!

The New York Times got in right in it’s correct endorsement of the next President of the United States, Hillary Clinton. She is, as the NYT said “BRILLIANT”! Clearly, her political skills are second to none. She is correct in asking that Florida & Michigan be seated at the DNC Convention. ALL of the states should be represented. Sen. Clinton is clearly the most qualified, experienced, with the best grasp of domestic & international issues candidate in the race of any party. The Dems are very lucky to have her. President Hillary Clinton will be GREAT!!!!
She has endured villification for over 16 years and is still standing strong & smart. Rock on Hillary!!

With Carolyn Kennedy’s endorsement we seem to be going backwards. The 60’s were a very difficult decade perhaps made worse by President Kennedy’s period of adjustment to the demands of the presidency.

He ran on a missile gap platform. On taking office he acknowledged there was not gap; on the contrary, the US had more atomic power than the USSR. His approval of the Bay of Pigs disaster spooked Castro and gave Krushchev a wedge issue leading to the USSR’s attempt to set up missiles in Cuba. Kennedy felt Laos was an important strategic country to make a stand and of course it was not. In other words, I believe that Kennedy’s learning curve did not keep pace with the problems that arose in foreign affairs.

He did not reign in Mr. Hoover, the FBI director, which should have been done especially in the matter of the FBI’s smear campaign against Martin Luther King.

Also President Kennedy’s personal life was a mess.

His daughter’s endorsement based on the idea that Obama can inspire like her father is shallow.

Hillary Clinton deserved the beating she received in South Carolina. Her and her husband’s behavior in recent weeks has been a disgrace, and as a former Clinton voter I have lost any respect I might have ever had for the former first couple. I have no doubt, however, that we can fully expect to see more dirty politics from the Clintons as we head into Super Tuesday.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…